Florida Sex Offenders Living under a bridge

[Rochelle]

This is really really dumb. I hope that this kind of law never passes in New Hampshire
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- The sparkling blue waters off Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway's only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings.

Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami's least welcome residents.

"I got nowhere I can go!" says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.

The Florida Department of Corrections says there are fewer and fewer places in Miami-Dade County where sex offenders can live because the county has some of the strongest restrictions against this kind of criminal in the country.

Florida's solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway.

The Julia Tuttle Causeway, which links Miami to Miami Beach, offers no running water, no electricity and little protection from nasty weather. It's not an ideal solution, Department of Corrections Officials told CNN, but at least the state knows where the sex offenders are.

Nearly every day a state probation officer makes a predawn visit to the causeway. Those visits are part of the terms of the offenders' probation which mandates that they occupy a residence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

But what if a sex offender can't find a place to live?

That is increasingly the case, say state officials, after several Florida cities enacted laws that prohibit convicted sexual offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks and other places where children might gather. (Watch one sex offender describe how he was forced to give up an apartment Video)

Bruce Grant of the Florida Department of Corrections said the laws have not only kept sex offenders away from children but forced several to live on the street.

"Because of those restrictions, because there are many places that children congregate, because of 2,500 feet, that's almost half a mile, that's a pretty long way when you are talking about an urban area like Miami, so it isn't surprising that we say we are trying but we don't have a place for these people to live in," Grant said.

For several of the offenders, the causeway is their second experience at homelessness. Some of them lived for months in a lot near downtown Miami until officials learned that the lot bordered a center for sexually abused children.

Trudy Novicki, executive director of Kristi House, said the offender's presence put the center's children at risk. "It was very troublesome to learn that across the street there are people who are sex offenders that could be a danger to our children," she said.
Keeping the rats off

With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. With the roar of cars passing overhead, convicted sex offender Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.

"The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you," he said.

Morales has been homeless and living under the causeway for about three weeks. He works, has a car and had a rented apartment but was forced to move after the Department of Corrections said a swimming pool in his building put him too close to children.

The convicted felons may not be locked up anymore, but they say it's not much of an improvement.

"Jail is anytime much better than this, than the life than I'm living here now," Morales said. "[In jail] I can sleep better. I get fed three times a day. I can shower anytime that I want to."

Morales said that harsher laws and living conditions for sex offenders may have unintended consequences.

"The tougher they're making these laws unfortunately it's scaring offenders and they're saying, 'You know what, the best thing for me to do is run,'" Morales said.

A Miami Herald investigation two years ago found that 1,800 sex offenders in Florida were unaccounted for after violating probation.

Florida's system for monitoring them needs to be fixed, says state Senator Dave Aronberg, who proposed a bill to increase electronic monitoring and create a uniform statewide limit that would keep them 1,500 feet away from places where children go.

'We need to know where these people are at all times," Aronberg said after CNN invited him to tour the bridge where the sex offenders live. "We need residency restrictions, but just don't have this hodgepodge of every city having something different."

State officials say unless the law changes their hands are tied, and for now the sex offenders will stay where they are: under a bridge in the bay.

[error]

We should have a registry of government employees and make them all move at least 1,000 feet away from civilization.

[d_goddard]

They just rejected a similar law:
http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB340
AN ACT restricting sex offenders from residing within a certain distance from schools and child-oriented organizations.

[Rochelle]

Good, I remember signing against that one when I was up in Concord for the 4 really important bills. I just wasn't sure where it went...

[MaineShark]

We should have a registry of government employees and make them all move at least 1,000 feet away from civilization.

That's no problem... government employees destroy civilization, and have an effective radius of much more than 1000 feet, so they would always be in the clear...

Joe

[KBCraig]

I thought some NH towns had adopted ordinances driving registered sex offenders out of town by restricting where they can live. I couldn't find it searching the UL, so perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

[EJinCT]

Hmmmm, I'm kind of split on this one... I guess I just have an intolerance of child abusers/pedophiles.

I agree that laws aren't needed to deal with this issue though. I have tryed to reside in many places where I was made to feel unwelcome and no laws were needed to influence me to leave.

[Dreepa]

I thought some NH towns had adopted ordinances driving registered sex offenders out of town by restricting where they can live. I couldn't find it searching the UL, so perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

Nope you are right.
Tilton
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070401/REPOSITORY/704010413/1093/48HOURS

Franklin (coming soon)
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070403/REPOSITORY/704030397/1070/TOWNS17
(both towns are just north of Concord)

[SpeedPhreak]

Hmmmm, I'm kind of split on this one... I guess I just have an intolerance of child abusers/pedophiles.

I was under the same way of thinking... then I participated in a thread on freestateproject.org - though i never agreed at anytime that banning living places is a good idea.

Most can agree that it is wrong; but you can't make a law based on morals - because peoples morals differ.  I am still not in 100% agreement w/1 or 2 people in the thread about consent & parents rights but I can respect their view points & arguments.

check out the thread if you are inclined - http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=10616.0

[KBCraig]

I thought some NH towns had adopted ordinances driving registered sex offenders out of town by restricting where they can live. I couldn't find it searching the UL, so perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

Nope you are right.

Thanks, Chris. I don't read the Monitor every day, so I didn't think to look there.

Just by the by, I have a huge objection to the "sex offender registry", especially as it's currently used. Someone being cited for taking a leak in the alley behind a bar could be guilty of "indecent exposure"; that's a sex offense. By looking at the "sex offender" map for my neighborhood, I find a 20-something man who is permanently branded for being caught having sex with his girlfriend (just a couple of days short of her 16th birthday) when he was just a couple of days past his 19th birthday. A week either way, and they could bump their monkeys with the state's blessing; instead, he suffers banishment for life.

[MaineShark]

Just by the by, I have a huge objection to the "sex offender registry", especially as it's currently used. Someone being cited for taking a leak in the alley behind a bar could be guilty of "indecent exposure"; that's a sex offense. By looking at the "sex offender" map for my neighborhood, I find a 20-something man who is permanently branded for being caught having sex with his girlfriend (just a couple of days short of her 16th birthday) when he was just a couple of days past his 19th birthday. A week either way, and they could bump their monkeys with the state's blessing; instead, he suffers banishment for life.

Indeed.  If they are truly dangerous, why are they walking the streets?  If they are not (like the examples Kevin gives), why register them?

Joe

[EJinCT]

but you can't make a law based on morals

Isn't that exactly how our countrys Constitution was formed?


The main problem I see is that the label "sex offender" is applied in too broad a manner.

Of course it is all culturally related and in most instances I don't agree with how the label is applied.

The age of consent is 14 in HI. as long as the S.O. is within 7 years of age; even though it is considered the U.S. it is a different culture for sure.

Another example of that being; in many traditional hawaiian families the last son born is typically raised as a female.

[SpeedPhreak]

The AOC varies world wide... from 9 to 21.  Even in recent US history 10 was legal in some states & until the sex offender hysteria legislation of the late 90s till now places such as NM & DE (I believe) were 13.  Puerto Rico is still 14.

Even if a society deems consentual sex a crime... the punishment should fit.  Life sentences (which is what any sex crime amounts to now days regardless of jail time) do not fit the crime.

I am far from expert on the constitution regardless I still say No - laws can not be based on morals.  You & I may agree morally on issue #1 but not on issue #2 & someone else may not agree with either of us on either issue.  When laws are made to give favor to one group of people over another it is wrong.  As long as another persons actions does not interfere w/the well being of me, my family, or my property I do not have a right to interfere - no matter how morally opposed I am to the said action.  Neither do you, neither does the president, neither does the guy working the counter at McDonalds.

What about the children? Raise your own kids to make the right decisions & supervise them well enough until they have the ability to do just that.  Realize that they may make decisions about their own person that you don't agree with but they have that right the same as everyone else (obviously a 17yr old will have better decision making skills than a 12yr old than a 3yr old & this is where parenting comes into play).

I don't want to high jack the thread w/this debate - even though its related.  The link above is good for this.

[dalebert]

Hmmmm, I'm kind of split on this one... I guess I just have an intolerance of child abusers/pedophiles.

This isn't about being tolerant of child abusers/ pedos. This is about handling something in a totally irrational manner. If you're intolerant of them, push for harsher sentences that keep them locked up longer; even forever if necessary, but this is insane. People need to quit being half-assed and mamby pamby. Either they're safe to be released in society or their not. These laws aren't going to protect any children. Do people really think a pedophile is going to go hunting near where they live? A criminal mind, especially of someone who's already been caught and is being watched, is going to try to be discrete. Measures like these are no more than mental masturbation to appease the torch-bearing mobs.

I have the same mindset for gun control. I don't even believe in gun control for a released convicted felon. If you are believed to be a danger to society if you get your hands on a gun, then you are a danger to society period. If they don't trust someone with a gun, don't let them out of prison. If you're walking around in a world where crime can and does take place, it's tyrannical and even criminal to render you helpless to defend yourself PERIOD.

This issue is going to continue to be a problem because no one wants to appear as sympathetic to child abusers. It's an emotional reaction that obscures reason. Lock these people back up or free them but make up your mind and get off the fence. Support the death penalty if you want, though I don't want to derail the thread into a whole new and controversial topic, but at least that would be consistent and make more sense than this mess.

[penguins4me]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Just because someone isn't behind bars doesn't mean that they aren't still being punished.
Bonus question: is the bridge within 2,500 feet of a 'place where children gather'? :P

Another example of that being; in many traditional hawaiian families the last son born is typically raised as a female.

How do they know when they've had the last son? :D